Slashdot Mirror
Apple Says Booting OS X Makes an Unauthorized Copy
recoiledsnake writes "Groklaw has an extensive look at the latest developments in the Psystar vs. Apple story. There's a nice picture illustrating the accusation by Apple that Psystar makes three unauthorized copies of OS X. The most interesting, however, is the last copy. From Apple's brief: 'Finally, every time Psystar turns on any of the Psystar computers running Mac OS X, which it does before shipping each computer, Psystar necessarily makes a separate modified copy of Mac OS X in Random Access Memory, or RAM. This is the third unlawful copy.' Psystar's response: 'Copying a computer program into RAM as a result of installing and running that program is precisely the copying that Section 117 provides does not constitute copyright infringement for an owner of a computer program. As the Ninth Circuit explained, permitting copies like this was Section 117's purpose.' Is Apple seriously arguing that installing a third party program and booting OS X results in copyright infringement due to making a derivative work and an unauthorized copy?"
Is Apple seriously arguing that installing a third party program and booting OS X results in copyright infringement due to making a derivative work and an unauthorized copy?
I think what they are saying is that everytime you run an unauthorized copy of a program, you infringe its copyright.
The dogcow says "Moof!"
This has actually been litigated before -- as crazy as it sounds, courts HAVE consistently held that booting a computer (and thus loading it to memory) does create a copy. End-users are granted a license to do so, and here Pystar doesn't have such a license. Crazy yes -- but Apple is on solid precedential ground in claiming so.
Groklaw and PJ seem to have turned the site into a slanted conspiracy site. She was insinuating that MS could be likely behind Psystar(why would MS risk invalidating EULAs on which their cash cows thrive?). Even in this article, PJ doesn't seem to defend the freedoms that she seems to hold dear in her Linux vs. SCO articles. Infact she seems to hold the DMCA dear and Groklaw has gone from giving a nice objective look at things to becoming like BoycottNovell, which is another site operating on anti-MS-at-all-costs grounds. She even fails to highlight the egregious abuse of copyright law that Apple is trying here which would ruin freedom to even run a program without paying for double licences. In fact she appears to side with Apple on this.
This space for rent.
Actually, wasn't the idea that copying a program from disk to RAM need specific permission, something that was ruled on very long ago?
I remember having a serious WTF feeling maybe 10 years ago when reading about a judge's ruling.
"Is Apple seriously arguing that installing a third party program and booting OS X results in copyright infringement due to making a derivative work and an unauthorized copy?"
Since Apple's license for OS X says that it can only be run on Apple hardware, the in-memory copy is just as unauthorized as the rest of them.
A.
...bringing you cynical quips since 1998
This is pretzel logic at its worst. Memo to Apple: build a machine that has a price point between the Mac mini and Mac Pro, that isn't an all-in-one machine, and is internally expandable, and people will buy that machine from YOU rather than buy a PC and make a Hackintosh. People know the difference between a Mac and a crappy PC. They know that the Mac will be the better quality machine. They will pay more -- not a King's Ransom, but modestly more -- for Apple quality. This is why the MacBook has pwn3d most lappies for years, and why the MacBook Pro is the best damn lappie experience currently available. Build something BETTER for a little more than a Dell or a HP or a Compaq and you will have the business back. I guarantee it.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
The Supreme Court indicated in Eldred v. Ashcroft that it was comfortable with the view that Copyright governs even private copying like moving a programs bits from a CD to hard disk or from hard disk to RAM. This is a legally settled matter, and Psystar is quite wrong.
Apple is being paid for every copy of OS X. Perhaps they should stop selling OS X as a full standalone product then? I don't think Apple has a right to say what piece of hardware you can run OS X on. It's paid for, end of story.
When everyone else tries to lock stuff down we scream about how evil and greedy they are. But when it comes to Apple, it's different somehow? Apple is just as greedy and as "evil" as Microsoft. They're out to make money just like everyone else.
Seems like Apple hardware owners would be making the same unauthorized copies when they boot their computers.
If I'm I'm Psystar's legal team, I'd argue they make the same unauthorized copies that Apple's hardware owners make. If the Psystar process makes unauthorized copies, then Apple's does too.
Doesn't Apple just sell upgrade licenses at retail?
At least that's how i understood it. And the other licenses are locked to the hardware - just like Microsoft's OEM licenses.
I don't know who to root for here. If apple wins then all CD/downloadable music is then by the nature of the distribution system given a derivative allowed copyright license when sold. As the only way to play it is to make several derivative copies of the material. Where the base structure is rearranged and then finally processed Digital to Analog.
1) CD/base store
2) CD buffer, linked associated chain
3) dram copy of data, another linked associated chain with OS and application page tracking
4) audio card input buffer, another linked associated chain
5) audio card processor, digital to analog conversion and final digital encoded analog value, then analog sound
The RIAA and MPAA are going to want to weigh in on this if it goes anywhere.
The difference would be if the EULA specifically gives Apple hardware owners the right to make that extra copy.
Psystar seems to be arguing that the owner of a copy of a program has inherent rights to load it into ram because of section 117, Apple says no, you need additional authorization you get from the EULA. If the EULA doesn't give anyone this right to a 3rd copy then you'd be correct.
The copy loaded into RAM is not infringement according to 17 USC 117, but that only holds if the copy being loaded _from_ is a legal copy. So if the copy Psystar loads onto the hard drive is unlawful, the copy in RAM is a further unlawful copy. That's not controversial (as a matter of law, anyway; it's pretty stupid as a matter of fact) and not really central to Apple's case.
Uh oh. Imagine, if Apple wins this, then REMEMBERING A SONG OR THINKING ABOUT A MOVIE SCENE will have the MAFIAA at your door in a flash, since after all you made an "illegal copy" in your brain...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Apple hardware owner make *authorized* copies, because those copies are allowed within the terms of license Apple grants. Pystar customers are *not* covered by that license and therefore are making *unauthorized* copies.
I think it might be silly to argue that ephemeral copies constitute copyright infringement, but there is clearly a distinction between authorized and unauthorized copies that comes down right where Apple says it does.
Here's my understanding of the situation: In both the Glider case and this one, we're talking about the original software being loaded into RAM potentially with third-party modifications to parts of it. This means that, even if the original software (the WoW client, and Mac OS X) was bought and paid for, and a RAM copy at runtime would be subject to the section 117 exception, there is room to argue that what is being loaded is not the bought and paid for authorized copy, but an unauthorized derivative work made by adding the third party modifications.
However, the section 117 exception gives a specific reason that the software might be allowed to be altered. Take a look (from http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000117----000-.html ):
"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or [...]"
So an "adaptation" of the software is allowed if it is necessary to use the software with a machine. Now a court could easily whinge its way around interpreting this as a compatibility measure, but if it doesn't, then in Psystar's case, as long as the third-party modifications are deemed by the court to be only for the purpose of enabling Mac OS X to run on a general purpose PC, then the RAM copy (and potentially all the modified copies) aren't infringing.
Anyway, I don't think this is a big obstacle to Apple; there seems to be enough case law in the US that has allowed for very broad enforceability of software licensing agreements that Apple can still probably out-lawyer Psystar into the dust for breaking their "Apple-labeled" license provision, even without a finding of copyright infringement.
It's that part of the case I'm most interested in, as "Apple-labeled" is a strange choice of wording, and Apple has in the past employed it willy-nilly (for instance in the license of Safari for Windows when they pushed out millions of copies as a selected-by-default Quicktime/iTunes upgrade [http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9904445-7.html])
Sort of. The $30 Snow Leopard is a Leopard upgrade license; the $170 SL/iLife/iWork pack is generally advertised as "For computers without Leopard", though the system requirements specifically state that you need an Intel Mac.
In practice, every Snow Leopard disc is identical, whether it comes in the cheap upgrade version or the "Mac Box Set" (above), or a family pack of either (aside from a sticker on the box, there's nothing in the family packs about licensing). As such, the installation EULA is going to be the same, and I don't think there's any doubt that Psystar is in violation of the EULA - just whether doing so can constitute copyright infringement by tripping this "unauthorized" clause.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
17 USC 117 starts out thusly:
Making of additional copy or adaptation by owner of copy. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 [17 USC 106], it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(emphasis added). The word "owner" is significant. When 17 USC 117 was originally written, it said something like possessor rather than owner, but during the ratification of this law, that was changed in Congress to owner, indicating that Congress really does intend this to apply to owners, not mere possessors.
If the purported sale of the copy that ended up in Psystar's possession was conditioned on acceptance of contractual terms that Psystar is failing to honor, it is possible they are possessor of that copy, but not owner, and thus do not get to use 17 USC 117.
Yes, but were talking about licensing here, not about technical possibilities.
That said, the Snow Leopard 29$ is an upgrade-only offer. You may use to do a full uninstall, but without an underlying Leopard license, you're unlicensed.
Depends if you have a licence to run the OS in question.
" To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research. "
I don't think Apple has a right to say what piece of hardware you can run OS X on. It's paid for, end of story.
They may not have a right (morally, that is), but, since the EULA states what you can run OS X on, they would seem to have a legal right.
Not everyone lives in USA. Different places have different laws. Where I am, that EULA as no validity. You can't impose a contract to use your product after I bought it. You have to make me accept that contract before I buy it. So it looks like eveybody in Quebec can go buy OS X and run it on anything they seem fit, even a toaster if they can make it work.
Avoid the MS tax, always buy I.B.M. PC's (I Built-it Myself)
No surprise, which is why you can search my house:0 NO Apple/Mac, no iDevices, not today, not ever. Not even welcome on the property (a recent guest was surprised but accepted my position).
So to summarize - because of Apple's heavy-handed behavior, you will not associate with anyone who does not allow you to force your beliefs on them.
There's some irony in there, somewhere. But on the bright side, I'm guessing this doesn't affect a significant number of people at all.
#DeleteChrome
Maybe your confusion is due to the fact that you think the GPL zealot crowd actually cares about copyright. What we care about is freedom. In the GPL's case, it is guaranteeing everyone the freedom to take a program and modify it however they desire. In this case, the concern is about the freedom to use software one has purchased however one desires. As far as I know, this has not been settled by court as copyright infringement. Incidentally, you don't have to support everything about copyright or detest it completely. You can see good and bad implications and places where there is room for improvement. Its perfectly reasonable for me to want to see GPL content covered by copyright and not desire that 40-year old books also be covered.
People know the difference between a Mac and a crappy PC.
A friend of mine thought he knew the difference but after he found out that he couldn't upgrade the video card of his 24'' Apple he decided to turn it to a tv/media center for his bedroom. He listened to my advice to upgrade the PSU of his crappy Pentium system, install a low cost RAID array, get a modern 3D card, upgrade the memory to 4 GB and finally get a high quality Unicomp keyboard and a 26'' led monitor. Except for the monitor, the upgrades cost him little and his old machine feels twice as fast as the Apple.
He is fuming with Apple because he would really like to play a few modern games but the video card of this model cannot be upgraded. (He didn't research that possibility as he never thought it possible to get a desktop system for 2500 Euros with a crappy portable MXM video without the option to upgrade.)
So he often comes to my apartment just to play Gothic III on my watercooled system which by the way cost only 1500 Euros and turns his Apple to dust.
A year ago, he was about to buy a MacBook but I saved him from that mistake by asking him to compare an equally priced Lenovo. He was blown away and I think this is the time when the Apple myth started fading on him.
I am sure you are not convinced, correct? And this is my point: Apple is right. Their secret recipe is no longer how to make great computers but how to make their users feel superior. "The difference between a Mac and crappy PC" in the eyes of a Mac user is that the PC is crappy by nature while the Mac is not. It's a delusion, but one that feeds Apple since the 90s.
Things to google:
"First Sale Doctrine"
"Rights of the owner of a purchased item to control its disposition."
If I were, for some reason, to *PURCHASE* a copy of OSX, then there is no 'contract'. I do not agree to any EULA's or shrinkwrap licenses.
I can do FUCK ALL WHATEVER THE HELL I want with that individual copy, as long as I don't distribute copies of it to other people. I *CAN* make a personal copy for backup purposes. I can use the disc as a coaster or I can use its contents as an entropy source for a random number generator. I can use it as a bookmark while reading War and Peace, or I can nail it to the wall to use as a mirror. And I sure as hell can run it on whatever hardware I choose that I can manage to get it to run on, including but not limited to my toaster, my microwave oven or my fax machine, or any computer I purchase from anywhere made by anyone.
Again, this is assuming that the party in question has purchased a copy of OSX. If they received it via some manner of distribution that violated copyright, then that is an entirely different matter.
I also *CAN* sell that copy to another individual (providing I do not retain any backup copies) for any price that I am willing to accept and the other individual is willing to pay.
I know morals involve some opinion
Correct, hence:
but I think that if you develop a product you should be allowed to sell that product on your terms,
Nice. I don't, and apparently neither does the GP.
and the law agrees with that.
Laws have nothing to do with morality.
Just because someone else wants to sell a product that is a derivative of your work doesn't mean you have to let them.
For many of us, the act of actively prohibiting third parties from modifying and redistributing your work is inherently inmoral, regardless of whether its done for profit or otherwise.
Books, music, DvD's etc all use these sorts of (legal) protections, and while some of us may loathe the methods they use to protect their wishes, not many people would claim they shouldn't have the right to limit reasonable use. i.e. You can't buy a DVD and start screening that movie for money.
What if we are some of those "not many people"? is one deprived of excercising his/her opinion solely because its a minority one?
Saying Apple is being immoral in this instance would imply nearly any contract that dictates how a product may be used is also immoral based on your reasoning for the immorality (EULA stating what can be done).
Hell *FUCKING* yeah. Limiting redistribution and modification is in some sort of a "moral gray area" for me, there are good arguments for both sides (though I tend to fall closer to the 'freedom' camp), but limiting *use* is the single biggest load of bullshit present in the huge, stinking shithole that is modern Copyright law.
If there is an alternate reason for the immorality please let me know but as you have stated it all I see is a conflict of interest between two companies. That does not constitute immorality.
For you. Others may feel differently and it is their right to do so.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
First sale doctrine means that Psystar already has the rights the EULA is trying to hoard for apple hardware owners.
Yeah, I know there are plenty of Apple fanbois here who will see nothing wrong with this whole situation. Really though, this is exactly why proprietary licensing is bad for society -- Apple is basically declaring that you are not allowed to build a computer than runs Mac OS X, you must BUY one from them, at a price that THEY determine. If Psystar loses, every hobbyist in the USA should take note to avoid Apple computers like a plague, because of the legal risk they impose on hobbyist groups. Anyone who was planning to buy a computer from Apple should take a moment to rethink that decision, and consider a more freedom respecting company.
Just my opinion. I will probably be flamed off the edge of the Earth by Apple fanbois though.
Palm trees and 8
I don't think Apple will lose this case, given the current legal situation, but if by some slim chance Psystar wins its case on the grounds that Apple should have no control over how their product is used as long as the software license is paid for, i.e. that the EULA doesn't hold in this case, then Apple will have to contend with a legion of people and companies doing this. On the one hand this would be the thing that would enable Apple to break Microsoft's stranglehold on the PC market, on the other it weigh Apple down with an enormous amount of support costs (unless they specifically exclude this in their EULA) and also do damage to their brand as it would get watered down. The latter is an important part of Apple's strength and I can understand them fighting this for dear life.
Apple is a corporation, that is headed by a chief executive officer and a board of directors. Those officials hire Apple's attorneys for the express purpose of representing Apple's legal interests. The attorneys are under their direction, and make controversial legal arguments only with their assent, explicit or otherwise.
If the officers of Apple Computer Inc. don't think this is a legitimate or wise legal argument to be making, they should fire their attorneys and make a public retraction. Otherwise it is res ipsa loquitur all the way, i.e. the thing speaks for itself.
No, apple is. Since their attorneys represent apple, they are apple in a court of law.
The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
I'm sure I'll get modded down again for speaking out about this, but I believe it needs to be pointed out.
The reason you get modded down every time you "speak out" about this is that you always ignore the reasoned responses you got the last time you "spoke out". The most likely explanation for your behavior is that you're trolling. Do you have a better explanation?
No it doesn't. That only deals with people's rights to resell their software package (media and license.) It doesn;t allow Psystar to make a modified version of OSX to load onto their PCs.
Yup, it's pretty hard for a fruit or a voiceless entity to make an argument.
As long as their attorneys are authorized by Apple to represent them in court, I think it can be said that Apple's making that argument in court.
And yes, it's the submitter here.
This space for rent.
No it's not. And even if it were, it's Apples priveledge as the copyright owner to allow people do do it under whatever terms they chose. i.e. only on APple computers.
It ain't rocket science.
that was over a app with online play and pay to play a OS is a buy one time per system and you don't pay per mouth to use it as well.
I vote for worst use of the English language ever?
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
I've always been a PC at heart.
Not like the rest, the others. Everyone around me. I was at odds with my society and knew it early since birth. Unlike them, I did not "Think Different!"--the mantra of the Macs around me, the phrase on all the billboards in the city that served as a reminder to its citizenry. Sameness pervaded the essence of my being and no amount of self-conditioning I did could change that. Eventually, I gave up and isolated myself emotionally from society.
I gaze at the faces going by, the white earphones contrasting their black turtlenecks, connecting their ears to their pockets, their blank faces engrossed in hip Indie rock music and various garage bands. I envied them for their perfection against my flaws and my compulsive nature to expand, to burden my life with troubles instead of remaining, like them, simple and easy to deal with. The grandest of virtues, simplicity... the philosophy by our loyal benefactor Steve Jobs, who descended from the heavens, creating the Earth, the iron, the wind and the rain. Steve Jobs, who defined the parameters of existence, the one who set about the patterns of reality, the constants, the variables. He who made gravity, electromagnetic energy, and shaped atomic structures and brought forth motion. From these things, he crafted the elements, processed them, refined them, and from these things engineered Apple products through the purity of his mind. Each Apple product was individually crafted by his own hands with the programming code used to run each device having being compiled in his brain and uploaded to each device telepathically, breathing life and perfection into each and every unit.
Except, it seems, for me, for I was not among the many. I was a PC. They were Macs. I've always been a cold, stiff person. I got by, disguising myself by keeping my non-Ipod music player safely out of sight, which I use because of my depraved nature demanding more functionality than the simple and easy-to-use Ipods have to offer.. In the safety of my own home, behind locked doors, I ran a Forbidden, a contraband computer from more depraved, earlier days that was not given the love and blessing of being birthed by Steve Jobs. I dual booted, out of the great sin of curiosity-- curiosity, a shameful value of a PC, as curiosity has no place where simplicity matters most--using two of the great unutterable blasphemies-- something called "Windows Vista" and something else called "Linux." Although, as I mentioned before, although my tendency to be a PC and towards conformity has always been inherent to me, I was truly transformed when I found these old things in a hidden cache of computer parts predating The Purging. Perhaps the greatest sin of all, the single evil that, if discovered, would damn me forever, was the fact that my mouse had more than one button.
As I walk among the Macs on the streets, passing the Starbuckses as I went along, I wondered how it all came to this. I glanced at The Holy Marks on the foreheads as the people wandered down the streets, the Bitten Apple tattooed on all our of us at birth, and wondered if, perhaps, there could be something more to life. But again, this was a PC's thought, and not, like everyone elses', a Mac's. We were to hold ourselves to the philosophy of Steve Jobs--so as his products were designed for idiots, so too were we to be idiots. But I was not a Mac--I was not an idiot. I was simply too complicated to be a worthwhile person.
Nature called. I found a nearby public iPoo--squeaky clean and sparkly white, things weren't all bad--and let myself go, expelling the waste that had accumulated inside me. After relieving myself and committing the overly-complicated and thus illegal act of wiping my ass (I did not flush as iPoos, designed to be idiot-proof, did not flush) I left and once again wandered the streets aimlessly, hoping to find some meaning in a world where I simply did not belong, a world where if my true nature was discovered, I would be endlessly persecuted by smug, self-righteous sons of bitches.
Not even close, fortunately. Go read Title 17 of the U.S. Code some time, in particular sections 101-103,107-109, and 117.
Note especially fair use rights, archival rights, the first sale doctrine, and the right to copy as necessary to use a program on a (single) machine.
Fair use: 17 USC 107
First Sale: 17 USC 109
Copy permitted if necessary to use program: 17 USC 117(1)(a)
Archival rights: 17 USC 117(1)(b)
Once again, this isn't concerned with transfer of title
Yes, it is. Apple's attorneys would have an enormous uphill battle fighting against centuries of common law, precedent, and the Uniform Commerical Code to establish that title to those copies did not transfer at each step of the distribution chain from Apple to Psystar.
Did any of those transactions involve a signed lease indicating that the transaction was not a purchase at all, but rather a transferable lease to a copy that was owned by a third party?
Apple owns the copyright, not the copy. Nor do they have any basis for the claim that they have title to copies that they delivered indefinitely in exchange for good money upfront. Nor do they have a basis for the claim that a shrinkwrap "license" is an enforceable license that governs the use of something the customer already owns. No one needs a license to use a copy they own - unless Apple owns the copy they cannot set the terms of its use beyond what is regulated by copyright.
It is worth noting here that generally speaking a license can be retracted on demand. That is why it is a license, not a contract. If I say you can use my swimming pool, that is a license. If I change my mind, I revoke that license. Only if consideration is involved does that license become a contract. "Purchasing a license" is an oxymoron. So is "consideration free contract".
..in the finest of slashdot traditions "It's Apple's OS, they developed it, spend years and millions of $$$ making it - why shouldn't they be allowed to say what machines can and can't run it?"
Because it's complete bullshit, that's why.
Here's the /. traditional analogy, so you can see how stupid it is. Right now today there's a huge enthusiast aftermarket industry and hobby developing electric vehicles from existing gas engine vehicles. Conversions. Because it's cool and a lot of folks want them. You can get kits and plans, or entire turnkey built vehicles, based off of ford rangers or chevy s-10s for example, those are common.
What apple is doing would be the same as if ford or chevy "didn't allow" unauthorized use of their "product" by modifying it to be something the end user customer really wanted, but that the original OEM doesn't provide. So, Ford and Chevy should be allowed to dictate that? After all, thousands of man hours of research and development and expensive manufacturing costs and so on, all went into their product. Well, the car companies freaking tried years and years ago to make it that way, they didn't even want to have after market replacement parts "allowed" because it "violated their precious". They wanted you locked into factory dealer prices for parts and labor. The courts said that was bullshit (in legalese of course, too bad they can't just speak plainly) shot them down on that, but for some reason so far the courts seem to think software is just so darn special it needs it's own "class", copyrights AND patents with the added bonus of NO WARRANTIES required, then you get the EULA treatment on top of that.
I think that's pure bullshit as well. It's "legal", but still bullshit.
OK, another one, how about some novel, with a full copyright, the author spends all this time in "development work", sitting in front of a keyboard, (sound familiar?) then the publisher has to "manufacture copies" for the end users, so then, they decide to force you to agree to some "End User Reading License". Only YOU may read that book, you may not lend it to another person because only YOUR eyeballs are "licensed to read it and make a copy in memory". The only "authorized copy" in anyone's brain "allowed" by the agreement is the first purchaser, if he was to lend it, OMG, the second person would then have an unauthorized brain copy in memory that he didn't pay for nor was allowed to make.
So what say you, the above examples should be legal as well, end user vehicle modding not allowed, end user reading and sharing the copy not allowed? Or would that be bullshit. I vote bullshit.
The law may technically be on apple's side right now, but that still doesn't make it right, it's bullshit.
There's been any number of "laws on the books" that were complete bullshit, and sometimes they stick there way past when they should be changed. In that case, only mass adoption of saying "Fuck you, jerks, that's bullshit!" works. This usually involves "interesting times", but such is human history made of, sport!
Now alcohol prohibition was on the books way before my time, and it only got changed when enough of the population just went "this is just bullshit" and drank anyway. Smoking the naughty naughty is that way today. Proly get changed..eventually,because the law is bullshit.
Now later on, when I was a younger dude, we had still a lot of civil rights issues to get sorted out, in one instance the "law" was taking its sweet time since the emancipation was a century previous. So, what happened is enough people got together and went "fuck you, that's bullshit!" and defied their "laws", me included. "Illegal"? Sure it was..sort of. Technically it wasn't, but technically it was..it was a clusterfuck because of conflicting "laws". You'd go someplace and blah blah "wasn't allowed", there were "restrictions" on some people that didn't apply to others. It was "on the books" though. Except over here it wa
That is not a flawed assumption. You CLEARLY stated that you think once something is sold you should be able to do ANYTHING with it. If this means copy and redistribute those copies then that is fine right? Or are you taking back your prior statements and saying that there should be some regulations on what it means to sell something. You are now clearly contradicting your own moral assertions because you are saying that there are conditions to the sale i.e. You can't do certain things with the product once you buy it (such as copy and redistribute the copies).
I don't care if I lose karma over this; get the fuck off your high horse. Current copyright is not perfect, but the idea that people should have no control over their creative works because it is "immoral" to place stipulations on the sale of something is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Stipulations on the sale of something is the basis of our modern society.
You are advocating anarchy through your 'morals'.
Normally I respect ones 'morals' but I think you have clearly demonstrated you are a self interested individual. You only care how this affects you and have no considerations to who else if affected by your ideas of right and wrong. You want to just go out and buy shit and have control over it with no thought of the work the creators put into making it. The reasons for wanting something to be sold with conditions is not to screw over the buyer. In fact most of the time it facilitates the buyer into being able to buy (and then get to use) something that would otherwise be too expensive. By reducing the level of control over said purchased item, or by stripping 'unnecessary' qualities from it, the product or service can be sold at a reduced price. The perfect example of this is a DVD. If there were no stipulations a DVD would probably cost in the thousands or higher because anyone could copy, screen, and otherwise profiteer by the purchase of the item. By imposing limitations the price can be reduced to a more reasonable level because the product is sold for a certain purpose. In the case of a DVD; private viewing with friends and family. Without this condition DVDs could not exist because the makers of the movie would not get compensated for their time and effort but someone else would. I really hope I don't need to go into a whole economics lecture here to explain why people need money to do things.
You can argue that morals are held by individuals, but all morals are the product of socialization one way or another. Socialization is the product of a society. Society is very closely involved with shaping the morals of the individual. All you need to do to prove this is compare America to say Iran. The vastly different morals are not due statistical anomalies or rational choices in individual persons. It is due to society socializing its members. Morality is inherently based on a set of generally accepted beliefs that a society has. In some societies it is immoral to do things that are perfectly normal in other societies. Laws are generated off of morals that the general society feels so strongly about that they are willing to FORCE that moral on anyone who is wishing to live within the societal structure. i.e. If you feel like parking in a handicapped spot you will get a ticket. There is nothing inherently wrong with parking in a spot arbitrarily marked as special, yet as a society the general moral belief is that those spots should be reserved for certain people who need them more. If this was not a general moral belief of the society.. it would not exist.
So while you can blab on about what you think is correct, morals are not just opinions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
Only in the most abstract sense of morality do you end up in the zone where morality is just an opinion. The generally accepted definition requires some sort of semi-logical justification of the view you take.
Psystar apparently ships the original DVDs to every customer, a proposition which if true should provide ample evidence for the claim that they did indeed purchase them. I read Apple's latest motion or counter-motion and didn't see any claim to the contrary.
As for the further legal perpetration of the fiction that software is licensed, rather than sold in a retail distribution chain, I guess I haven't read enough to be convinced that proposition is now received common law.
It is as I commented elsewhere, if you go to an independent auto dealer and pay them $20,000 dollars for a car, can the auto manufacturer come back and say that you have actually entered into an indefinite lease of a car (a car that in actual fact you do not own), without a signed agreement to the effect that you understand that you have entered into a lease agreement rather than a purchase agreement?
Furthermore, I don't understand why anyone would need a license to exercise their rights with respect to a physical copy of software that they own. A license is legal permission to do something otherwise unauthorized. Do people need a license to read books that they have purchased, on the theory that they own some raw material, but not an actual copy?
To me it seems like lawyers for software companies are trying to invent a tertium quid and get it recognized at common law, a sort of legal right which is not ownership, nor copyright, but which somehow remains with the copyright holder and lets them dictate what owners of copies may and may not do beyond what copyright law prohibits them from doing.
That is the sort of thing that ought to take an act of Congress, and indeed Congress already has acted with 17 USC 109:
So is a EULA (for example) based on the claim that the end user does *not* own a "particular copy" of the copyrighted work in question? The word "copy" implies identity in form and pattern. Can the user own a legitimately produced CD-ROM, without owning a "copy" of the original? Are any "copies" of software owned by anyone other than the copyright holder? -- Not according to 17 USC 109(a), otherwise it would be meaningless. Right?
You CLEARLY stated that you think once something is sold you should be able to do ANYTHING with it
Then you could easily produce a quote of such an statement.
You are now clearly contradicting your own moral assertions because you are saying that there are conditions to the sale i.e. You can't do certain things with the product once you buy it (such as copy and redistribute the copies).
Technically it'd be the government conditioning the terms of use after the sale, much like I can sell you a gun but you still can't shoot somebody with it, it's not *me* who is prohibiting you from doing so. I did state that *use* of creative works should not be limited, meaning by either the original creator nor the government, but I never did so for redistribution and in fact I conceded there were valid points for both sides.
Current copyright is not perfect, but the idea that people should have no control over their creative works because it is "immoral" to place stipulations on the sale of something is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
The idea that people have an inalienable right to control how their work is used even after selling it is much worse.
You are advocating anarchy through your 'morals'.
Wrong, and irrelevant.
Normally I respect ones 'morals' but I think you have clearly demonstrated you are a self interested individual. You only care how this affects you and have no considerations to who else if affected by your ideas of right and wrong.
Wrong. Unlike you, however, I give creators the same value as users, I do not give them preferential treatment over some alleged "right" they may possess, hence my conclusions in contrast to yours.
Without this condition DVDs could not exist because the makers of the movie would not get compensated for their time and effort but someone else would.
Wrong. DVDs would still exist, movies would (likely) still exist, its just that DVDs would only be manufactured by, well, manufacturers, then had a movie copied to them by regular people rather than being made and sold by movie studios trying to make an extra buck.
You can argue that morals are held by individuals
I didn't argue, I stated. I'm merely informing you of a fact.
but all morals are the product of socialization one way or another. Socialization is the product of a society. Society is very closely involved with shaping the morals of the individual.
And cars are built by machines who are built by people who are (usually) created through a couple having sexual intercourse. Are cars a product of sex? 'morality' is simply how an individual feels towards the concept of certain acts, societies cannot have morality much like they cannot have feelings or thoughts, only the individuals contained therein.
Only in the most abstract sense of morality do you end up in the zone where morality is just an opinion. The generally accepted definition requires some sort of semi-logical justification of the view you take.
No, the generally-accepted definition is that of mere opinions, the whole concept of logical justifications and analysis of morality is what we call Ethics which is only related to the concept of morality as gravity is to Physics.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
Sherwin Williams doesn't tell me that I can't use exterior house paint on interior walls. They might recommend otherwise, but I can do what I want with their paint - I paid for it.
Prescription drug makers love it when something like Botox, which was originally developed as a treatment for crossed eyes, is used for "off-label" applications. Now, airline tickets are another matter, but it's not really good marketing to justify your shitty business practices because airlines get away with something similar...
Granted, if I use these products in a manner inconsistent with their labeling, I assume the risk of doing so.
I couldn't give two fucks about the BSA or your Adobe example (I seriously doubt BSA is going to sue one individual for upgrading a pirated serial, but this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand).
In my theoretical case, I paid for OS X and I can damn well use it how I please. Apple got their money. If they don't want us using OS X on third party hardware, maybe they should stop selling upgrades, embed the OS in ROM and only sell updated OS software with new machines - they'd love that.
If I am Apple and some whiner calls complaining that their Dell Mini 9 got bricked by a software update, it's tough luck, Charlie. It's funny though that Dell support will tell you how to install OS X on your Dell Mini 9, and I don't see the BSA going after them.
Isn't it also funny how Dell has made sure that certain models of their laptops are plug compatible with Macs, which allows you to install OS X onto them without hacking them first...
Ask Me About... The 80's!